SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.95386.May29,1997]

MIGUELACAMPOSONG,SurvivingSpouseofMANUELONG,petitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ALFREDO ONG and ROBERT ONG,
respondents.
DECISION
MENDOZA,J.:

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 26,
1990, affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Cebu City, which
declaredAlfredoOng,Jr.andRobertOngtheillegitimatechildrenofManuelOngandthus,
entitledtosupport.AlsoassailedhereinistheresolutionissuedonAugust16,1990,denying
themotionforreconsiderationfiledbypetitioner.
PetitionerMiguelaCamposOngisthesurvivingspouseofManuelOng.Thelatterdied
onMay21,1990,whilethecasewaspendingappealintheCourtofAppeals.Ontheother
hand, private respondents Alfredo Ong, Jr. and Robert Ong are children of Saturnina
Caballes allegedly by Manuel Ong. They brought this case to compel Manuel Ong to
recognizethemashisillegitimatechildrenandtogivethemsupport.
Theypresentedevidenceshowingthefollowing:
On December 20, 1953, Manuel Ong, representing himself as Alfredo Go, was
introducedtoSaturninaCaballesattheYarrowBeachResort,anightclubinTalisay,Cebu,
by Constancia Lim and Vicente Sy. In no time, the two had a relationship. Since October
1954, Manuel started spending the night with Saturnina. Saturnina testified that she and
ManuelOnglivedtogetherforfourmonths,firstonA.LopezStreetandlaterinTalamban.In
addition,ManuelOnggave her money, a sack of rice each month, and other supplies. On
June28,1955,AlfredoOng,Jr.wasborninTalamban.HewasregisteredintheLocalCivil
RegistryasAlfredoGo,Jr.OnAugust17,1956,RobertOngwasborn.Becausethemidwife
told Saturnina that the child should carry her surname as she was not married to Manuel
Ong,aliasAlfredoGo,thechildwasthereforeregisteredasRobertCaballes.
Thereafter,thefinancialsupportfromManuelOngstartedtodwindle,untilsevenmonths
later when Manuel Ong stopped seeing her. This prompted Saturnina to look for him. She
discoveredhisidentityasManuelOng.SaturninaaskedManuelOngforfinancialsupportof
theirchildren,butherefusedherrequest.
In the latter part of 1961, Saturnina and private respondents again asked Manuel Ong
for monetary assistance because of financial difficulties. But Ong denied them assistance.
The records disclose that on December 25, 1976, Alfredo and Robert Ong visited Manuel
Ong in his house on M. J. Cuenco Avenue where they were entertainedand presented to
Manuel Ong by Dolores Dy, Manuels Chinese commonlaw wife. Alfredo Ong, Jr. testified
thatonMarch29,1979,hewasgivenaChinaBankingCorp.checkforP100.00byManuel
Ongashisgiftonhisgraduationfromhighschool.Later,whenAlfredoOngwasinhissenior
yearincollege,hesawManuelinthe latters office and asked him for money to defray his
educationalexpenses.ManuelOnggavehimP100.00cashandtoldhimtomakealistofhis
school needs. After getting the list which Alfredo had prepared, Manuel Ong told him to

comeback.AlfredoreturnedwithsomefriendsinSeptember1982,butManuelOngturned
down his request and ordered him to leave and threatened to call the police if he did not
leave.
On September 30, 1982, Alfredo filed a complaint for recognition and support against
ManuelOng.ThecomplaintwasamendedonNovember25,1982toincludeRobertasco
plaintiff.Aftertrial,privaterespondentswerefoundtobetheillegitimatechildrenofManuel
OnginaccordancewithArt.283,pars.2and4oftheCivilCode.Accordingly,thetrialcourt
ordered:
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiffs:
1.declaringtheplaintiffsastheillegitimatechildrenofManuelOng,begottenbyhimwithSaturnina
Caballes
2.orderingManuelOngtopaythesaidplaintiffsthemonthlysupportofP600,effectivefromthedate
ofthisdecision.[1]
On appeal, this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[2] Petitioner moved for
reconsideration, but his motion was denied on August 16, 1990 for lack of merit. The
appellatecourtcitedArt.283,par.3asanadditionalgroundfororderingtherecognitionof
privaterespondentsasillegitimatechildrenofManuelOng.Hence,thispetition.
ThepertinentprovisionsofArt.283oftheCivilCodestate:
Article283.Inanyofthefollowingcases,thefatherisobligedtorecognizethechildashisnatural
child:
....
2.Whenthechildisincontinuouspossessionofstatusofachildoftheallegedfatherbythedirect
actsofthelatterorhisfamily
3.Whenthechildwasconceivedduringthetimewhenthemothercohabitedwiththesupposedfather
4.Whenthechildhasinhisfavoranyevidenceorproofthatthedefendantishisfather.
Art.289allowstheinvestigationofpaternityofspuriouschildrenonthesamegroundsspecifiedin
thisarticleandinArt.284.
TherecordsofthiscasebearoutthefollowingfindingsofboththeCourtofAppealsand
thetrialcourt:(1)thatManuelOngintroducedhimselftoSaturninaCaballesasAlfredoGo
(2) that Saturnina Caballes and Manuel Ong had an illicit relationship from 1954 until
sometime in March of 1957, during which they had repeated sexual intercourses (4) that
duringthisperiod,ManuelOnggavesupporttoSaturninaandprivaterespondents(5)that
Dolores Dy, Manuels commonlaw wife, treated private respondents like close relatives of
ManuelOngbygivingthemonNovember2,1979andJanuary6,1977tokensofaffection,
suchasfamilypicturesofDoloresDyandManuelOng,[3]andbyvisitingthemintheirhouse
onA.LopezStreetin1980(6)thatontwooccasionsManuelOnggavemoneytoAlfredo,
first,asthelattershighschoolgraduationgiftandsecond,forthelatterseducationalsupport.
ThetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealsdismissedManuelOngsclaimthatAlfredotried
to extort money from him. They noted that Alfredo had written his name on the piece of
paper and that if this was a case of extortion, the amount demanded would have been in
round figures and not P4,974.28.On this basis they concluded that the amount written on
thelistwasthetotaloftheitemizedexpenseswhichAlfredoOng,Jr.wasaskinghisfatherto

defrayashisschoolexpenses.
Petitioner questions the morality and credibility of Saturnina Caballes. She refers to
Saturninas admission that before she had relation with Manuel she was cohabiting with a
paralytic from San Fernando, in order to distinguish this case from that of Navarro vs.
Bacalla[4]inwhichthecompulsoryrecognitionofanaturalchildwasorderedonthebasisof
the testimony of the mother of the child that the putative father had impregnated her.
Petitioner points out that, in that case, there was also evidence presented that at no time
beforeandduringthechildsconceptiondidthemotherhaveanyrelationwithanyotherman.
Thus:
Specifically,astherecordsshows,thepaternityofdefendanthereinwasprovedbythetestimonyof
plaintiffsmotherthathe(defendant)impregnatedmeandthatatthetime,before,andduringplaintiffs
conceptionshehadnoaffairwithanyothermanasidefromthedefendant....
Weagreewithappellantthattheforegoingevidenceisincludedinthebroadscopeofparagraph4,
Article283,NewCivilCode.[5]
Tobeginwith,factualquestionsasdeterminedbythetrialcourt,especiallyrulingsonthe
credibilityofwitnesses,[6]whenaffirmedbytheappellatecourt,arebindingonthisCourtand
are accorded utmost respect. It is only when it is shown that the trial court ignored or
overlooked or did not appreciate correctly matters of substance which affect the results of
the controversy that this Court will depart from this rule.[7] In the case at bar, no sufficient
reasonhasbeenshownforthisCourtnottoadheretothegeneralrule.
InconsistenciesthereareinthetestimonyofSaturninaCaballes,buttheyarenotofsuch
a nature as to put in doubt the testimony of Saturnina that Manuel Ong was the father of
privaterespondentsAlfredoOng,Jr.andRobertCaballes.Thediscrepanciesconcernminor
details and, if at all, only show that Saturnina Caballes was an uncoached witness.[8]
Saturninatestifiedthatshortlyaftergettingacquaintedwitheachother,sheandManuelOng
hadrelationandinfactlivedtogetheratA.LopezStreetinCebuCityforfourmonths,and
thatManuelOnggavehersupportconsistingofmoneyandthenecessitiesoflife,likerice.
SaturninastestimonywascorroboratedbyConstanciaLimMonteclaros.Constanciawas
the person who introduced Saturnina to Manuel Ong. Constancia and Vicente Sy, Manuel
Ongsclosefriend,livedtogetherinaroominthehouseofOng.SheknewManuelverywell.
NoreasonhasbeengivenwhysheshouldtestifyfalselyagainstManuelOng.
TwocircumstancesarementionedwhichallegedlymakeitimprobablethatManuelOng
was the father of private respondents. The first is that Saturnina Caballes admitted having
cohabitedwithanothermanbeforemeetingManuelOng.Therecordsshow,however,that
the man, who was a paralytic, was taken by his mother in 1953, before Saturnina started
havinganaffairwithManuelOngin1954.PrivaterespondentAlfredoOng,Jr.wasbornon
June 28, 1955, more than a year after the paralytic had left Saturnina. The other private
respondent, Robert Caballes, was born on August 17, 1956. Hence, private respondents
could not have been conceived during the period of cohabitation of their mother with the
unidentifiedparalytic.
The other circumstance mentioned is that Manuel Ong was allegedly sterile. Ong
claimedthat,inadditiontopetitionerMiguelaCamposOng,helivedwithacommonlawwife,
Dolores Dy, and with another woman named Anatolia Veloria but he had no child with
anyoneofthem.HesaidthatduringWorldwarIIhegotsickandwastreatedbyacertainDr.
Deiparinewhoallegedlytoldhimthatasaresultofhisillnesshewouldnotbeabletobeget
any child. Ong further claimed that he cohabited with Dolores Dy before and during his
marriage with petitioner Miguela Campos Ong. His inability to procreate is said to be the
reasonwhypetitionerandManuelOngraisedsixchildrennotrelatedtothembyblood.

We think both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed claims that
ManuelOngwassterileandthereforecouldnothavebeenthefatherofprivaterespondents.
No competent medical testimony was presented to prove this claim. His testimony that he
hadbeentoldbyacertainDr.Deiparinethatbecauseofanillnesshecontractedduringthe
warhewouldnolongerbeabletoprocreateisplainhearsay.
On the other hand, the claim that although he lived with three women (including
petitioner) no one bore him a child is belied by the fact that he acknowledged a certain
Lourdes Balili as his natural child. The record shows that on May 24, 1948, the Court of
InstanceofCeburenderedadecisionwhichinpartstated:[9]
Thisisacaseofacknowledgmentofanaturalchildandsupport.Whenthiscasewascalledfortrial
today,thepartiesenteredintothefollowingagreement:
ThatthedefendantisagreeabletoacknowledgeLourdesOngashisnaturalchildandthemother,
VictoriaBalili,acknowledgestherightofthesaiddefendanttothecustodyofthechild.
PlaintiffLourdesOng,therefore,isherebydeclaredacknowledgednaturalchildofManuelOng,with
therighttobearthenameofnaturalfather,whoshallhavethecustodyuponher,withoutprejudicefor
themothertoseeandvisitherfromtimetotime.
Inthecomplaintforsupportfiledinthatcase,itwasalleged:
4.ThatinthemonthofJanuary,1938,tothedaywhenthelastwarbrokeout,theguardianadlitem,
VictoriaBalili,andthehereindefendantManuelOngwithrepeatedpromisesbythelattertomarry
theformer,theylivedtogetherashusbandandwife
5.Thatwhiletheylivedassuch,theplaintiffLourdesOngwasbegottenorbornonMarch31,1939,
attheCityofCebu[10]
TheseallegationscontradicttheclaimofManuelOng[11]thatduringthewarhelivedwith
VictoriaBalili(notVictoriaVeloria,whichisapparentlyatypographicalerror)butbecauseof
hissterilitytheydidnotbegetanychild.
Petitionercontendsthatthedecisioninthatcasecannotbepresentedasevidenceofhis
virility because it was based on a compromise agreement relating to the civil status of
persons, which is prohibited under Art. 2035, par. 1 of the Civil Code. This contention is
untenable. The evidence was not presented to establish in chief a fact but to impeach the
credibilityofManuelOngasawitness.Moreover,asisclearfromthequotedportionofthe
judgment,thepartiesdidnotreallyenterintoacompromiseinthesenseinwhichthetermis
usedinArt.2028asacontractwherebytheparties,bymakingreciprocalconcessions,avoid
a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. Rather what Manuel Ong did was
actuallytomakeavoluntaryrecognitionofthechildpursuanttoArt.278,whichprovidesthat
recognitionshallbemadeintherecordofbirth,awill,astatementbeforethecourtofrecord,
orinanyauthenticwriting.Whatheagreedtodowastoacknowledgethechildashis,rather
thantoagreetoconsiderthechildtobehisnaturalchild.
Indeed,theevidenceforpetitionerdoesnotshowthatManuelOngwassterileandcould
nothavebegottenprivaterespondentsorthatevenifhewassoduringthewarthathecould
nothavebeencuredtenyearslaterofthatconditionwhenAlfredoOng,Jr.wasconceived.
On the other hand, as this Court has ruled[12] an adult male is presumed to have normal
powersofvirilityandtheburdenofevidencetoprovethecontraryrestsuponhimwhoclaims
otherwise.Petitionerhasnotovercomethispresumption.
The Court of Appeals declared private respondents the illegitimate children of Manuel
OngpursuanttoArt.283,pars.2,3and4.Inregardtothefindingthatprivaterespondents

hadbeeninthecontinuouspossessionofstatusaschildrenofManuelOng,petitionercites
therulinginDeJesusvs.Syquia,[13]whereinitwasstated:
Thewordcontinuousinsubsection2ofarticle135oftheCivilCodedoesnotmeanthatthe
concessionofstatusshallcontinueforever,butonlythatitshallnotbeofanintermittentcharacter
whileitcontinues.
PetitionercontendsthatManuelOngsactsofrecognitionwereintermittentandisolatedand
notcontinuous,asAlfredoOng,Jr.claimstohaveencounteredhisputativefatheronlyfour
times,in1961,onDecember25,1976,March29,1979andsometimeinSeptember1982,
whereas Robert had only two such encounters, which were in 1961 and on December 25,
1976.
PetitioneralsocontendsthattherefusalofManuelOngtorecognizeandgivesupportto
privaterespondentsisproofthatheneverrecognizedthemashischildrenbecause,asheld
inMendozavs.Ibaez:[14]
...theenjoymentofthestatusofanaturalchildreferredtointhesaidarticlemustnecessarilybe
provenbyactsshowinganexpressdesireonthepartofthefather,orofhisfamily,asthecasemay
be,torecognizetheclaimantashisnaturalchild,suchasthekeepingofthechild,orbyother
analogousacts,ofequalweightandefficacy,showingthatsuchrelationshipexistsbetweenthechild
andtheallegedfatherorhisfamily.
WithregardtotheCourtofAppealsfindingthattherewascohabitationbetweenManuel
OngandSaturnina,thusjustifyingtheapplicationofpar.3ofArt.283,petitionerpointsout
that the Court of Appeals simply referred to its main decision and that of the trial court in
holding that there was cohabitation when the fact is that neither in the appellate courts
decision nor in that of the trial court was it found that there was cohabitation. On the
contrary, the trial court held that there was no cohabitation because Manuel Ong and
Saturnina Caballes did not openly live together as husband and wife, for a period of time,
underthesameroof,butdidsoclandestinely.[15]
Weagreethatthiscasedoesnotfallunderpars.2and3ofArt.283oftheCivilCode.
Aspetitionerwellstates,thefourtimesduringwhichManuelOngmetAlfredoandgavethe
lattermoneycannotbeconsideredproofofcontinuouspossessionofthestatusofachild.
Thefathersconducttowardhissonmustbespontaneousanduninterruptedforthisground
toexist.Here there are no acts shown of Manuel Ong treating Alfredo Ong, Jr. as his son
exceptonthefouroccasionsduringwhichtheymet.InthecaseofRobertCaballes,thereis
noproofatallthatManuelOngtreatedhimashisson.
Nor can it be said that there was proof of cohabitation in this case. While Saturnina
CaballestestifiedthatsheandManuelOnglivedtogetherforfourmonthsashusbandand
wifeinordertojustifyafindingofcohabitation,therelationshipwasnotopenandpublicso
astoconstitutecohabitation.[16]Whilethepartiesarenotrequiredtoholdthemselvesoutas
husband and wife, neither must they act clandestinely or secretly, otherwise they will be
consideredtohavemerelyengagedinillicitsexualintercourse.[17]
Nonetheless, we hold that the evidence in this case sufficiently makes this case fall
underthelastparagraphofArt.283,i.e.,anyotherevidenceshowingthatManuelOngwas
the father of private respondents.In Ilano vs. Court of Appeals,[18] this Court held that the
phrase any evidence or proof in the last paragraph of Art. 283 operates as a blanket
provisioncoveringallcasesintheprecedingones,sothatevidence,eventhoughinsufficient
to constitute proof under the other paragraphs, may nonetheless be enough to qualify the
caseunderpar.4.Inthiscase,thetestimonyofSaturninaCaballesthatshehadillicitsexual
relation with Manuel Ong over a long period(19541957) which, had it been openly done,
would have constituted cohabitation under par. 3 is proof that private respondents were

conceived and born during such relationship and constitutes evidence of Ongs paternity.
This relationship was further established through the testimony of Constancia Lim. The
evidenceforprivaterespondentsisnotnegatedbytheadmissionofSaturninaCaballesthat
she had relation with another man before, because the relationship terminated at least a
yearbeforethebirthofAlfredoOng,Jr.andtwoyearsbeforethebirthofthesecondchild
RobertCaballes.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated January 26, 1990, and its
resolution,datedAugust16,1990,areAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Regalado,(Chairman),Romero,Puno,andTorres,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
[1]Rollo,p.43.
[2]PerJusticeJoseC.Campos,Jr.andconcurredinbyJusticesOscarM.HerreraandFernandoA.Santiago.
[3]ExhibitsLandM.
[4]15SCRA114(1965).
[5]Id.at116.
[6]Peoplevs.Valencia,214SCRA88,9697(1992).
[7]Aycovs.Fernandez,195SCRA328,333(1991).
[8]Peoplevs.Puloc,202SCRA179,190(1991).
[9]ExhibitsBandB1,Pretrialrecords.
[10]Exhs.A1andA2.1
[11]TSN,pp.197199,September26,1985.
[12]Peoplev.Fontanilla,23SCRA1227,1245(1968)Mencianov.NeriSanJose,89Phil.63(1951).
[13]58Phil.866,870(1933).
[14]4Phil.666,668669(1905).
[15]CitingPeoplevs.Pitoc,43Phil.758(1922).
[16]SeePeoplevs.Pitoc,43Phil.758(1922)Ocampovs.People,72Phil.268(1941).
[17]Cf.Montenegrov.Montenegro,L8343,June29,1957(unreported).
[18]230SCRA242,258(1994).